France and Italy get preliminary approval of their budgets, but it's not the end of the story

The European Commission has given France and Italy a preliminary nod through on their draft budgets for 2015. In a statement released yesterday evening, Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen said:

"After taking into account all of the further information and improvements communicated to us in recent days, I cannot immediately identify cases of 'particularly serious non-compliance' which would oblige us to consider a negative opinion at this stage in the process."

An outright rejection of the French and Italian budget plans was always unlikely, as it was in no-one's interest to trigger an almighty row involving the second and third largest Eurozone economies. However, doing nothing was also never really an option for the Commission. Had it let France and Italy get away with draft budgets that were not only clearly deviating from their deficit reduction commitments but also not even acting to try and meet them, the credibility of EU fiscal rules - already wafer-thin - would have been shattered.

Over the past few days, both France and Italy pledged to make additional cuts to those initially planned for next year. Therefore, at least in terms of political narrative, the Commission got the upper hand in this first round. It stood up for budget consolidation, and it made its demand for extra efforts heard in Paris and Rome. On the other hand, for all their anti-austerity bluster, French President François Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi are likely to come across as eventually bending to the will of Brussels.

That said, this is by no means the end of the story. The measures proposed by France and Italy to achieve the extra deficit reductions look far from structural. Also, as the FT notes, the changes are still short of what the Commission demanded and remain vaguely defined: 

• In his letter to Katainen, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin mentions the lower interest rates on French debt, the lower contribution to the EU budget recently announced by the Commission (we have written extensively on this issue, see here and here), and a strengthening of the fight against tax evasion.

• Similarly, his Italian counterpart Pier Carlo Padoan said he would use a €3.3 billion tesoretto (literally 'little treasure', but basically a reserve fund), originally set aside to lower the tax burden in 2015, to reduce deficit instead. However, there seems to be no guarantee that Italy will be able to find the same amount of money every year.

The Commission will issue its final verdict on the draft 2015 budgets of all Eurozone countries by the end of November. We would expect the Commission to come up with a set of stringent recommendations for France and Italy, although an entirely negative opinion looks unlikely. In the end, we may well see a replay of the current discussion. In the meantime, as the contrasting headlines from the New York Times today show, some may struggle to discern who exactly capitulated... 

The print version and online version of the New York Times today struggle to judge who blinked first...

Flexibility and sloppy translations: Could the discussion on EU fiscal rules still endanger Juncker's election?

The Bundesbank attacks Renzi: "He tells us what to do". This is today's front page headline of Italian daily La Repubblica. According to Italian media, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann yesterday had a go at Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi for telling everyone else in Europe what they have to do.

Well, that's not quite what Weidmann said. The full speech is available here. And the exact quote is:

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, for instance, likens the EU to 'an old, boring aunt, who tells us what we should do.'

In other words, Weidmann was simply quoting Renzi. Quite different from what has been reported by Italian papers, although Weidmann did say in his speech that structural reforms "should be implemented, not only announced" - a Bundesbank Leitmotiv.

A case of 'lost in translation'. Still, Renzi hit back less than an hour ago during his joint press conference with outgoing European Commission President José Manuel Barroso in Rome:

#Renzi: The task of the Bundesbank is not to take part in the Italian political debate.
— Vincenzo Scarpetta (@LondonerVince) July 4, 2014

Sloppy translations aside, this episode highlights that there are some unresolved issues when it comes to what different eurozone countries mean by the 'flexibility' of EU fiscal rules. This may well spice up the European Parliament vote on the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President, scheduled for 15 July.

A couple of Italian MEPs from Renzi's Democratic Party have said they want "clarity" from Juncker before supporting him. Similarly, the leader of French Socialist MEPs Pervenche Bérès told French daily Le Monde:

We are in a difficult equation. We criticise the [economic] policies of the right. But if we reject this candidacy, we will have no influence on the re-orientation of the policies that Juncker must pursue.

It is too early to tell how this story will end. Juncker is due to meet the centre-left S&D group on Tuesday precisely to discuss the priorities of the new European Commission. We will probably have a clearer idea after that. Indeed, one would assume that, if Renzi or François Hollande told their MEPs to vote for Juncker, MEPs would follow their leaders' instruction. Furthermore, the German and Italian governments are both playing down tensions.

That said, looking at the vote on Juncker in the European Parliament, the three groups expected to back him (EPP, S&D and ALDE) have 479 MEPs in total. The UK Labour Party already said it would vote against Juncker. If French, Italian and maybe Spanish centre-left MEPs did the same, along with the 12 Hungarian centre-right MEPs from Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party (who sit in the EPP group), support for Juncker would suddenly shrink to 389 MEPs.

The required majority is 376, so we would be looking at a much tighter vote. And it's going to be a secret ballot, which adds to the uncertainty. Time for Juncker to get worried? Maybe not yet, but he has already got a quite difficult job on his hands in pleasing everyone when it comes to using the 'flexibility' in the EU's Stability and Growth Pact to its full extent.

Italy claims "great victory" over "looser" eurozone fiscal rules

UPDATE (11:30am) - In a separate interview with Quotidiano Nazionale on Saturday, Mr Del Rio explicitly speaks of a "great victory" for Italy at the EU summit.

Here's the full quote:

"The green light to flexibility is the great victory [...] One needs to acknowledge that, thanks to Italy, the work of the summit was not focused on names, but on what to do to move from the time of austerity [rigore] to the true implementation of the [EU's] Stability and Growth Pact. We really won a substantial battle."

ORIGINAL BLOG POST (9:50am)

It was bound to happen.

The battle to make EU fiscal rules more 'flexible' was one of the key issues on the table at last week's European Council summit. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and French President François Hollande were seeking to make their support for Jean-Claude Juncker conditional on a de facto loosening of the rules. So what was the outcome? Well, depends on who you ask. If you ask Renzi's people, this weekend saw a watering down of the rules.

Graziano Del Rio, Renzi's top aide (see picture), claims thus in an interview with today's Corriere della Sera:

Q: Italy comes back from Brussels with the rule of the 'best use' of the flexibility already provided for [by the EU Treaties]. Isn't that too little to speak of a Europe that abandons austerity and of a victory of the Renzi government?

A: No, it's not too little because it is precisely the lack of use of flexibility that has caused our most serious problems.

Q: So, during its semester of [rotating] EU Presidency, Italy won’t ask to raise the [EU's] deficit limit, the famous 3% of GDP? 

A: I don’t think that’s a rule set in stone forever, but we don’t want to be the ones who move it onto sand. No, we won’t ask to raise the 3% [deficit/GDP threshold]. That’s also to avoid suspicions and titters in Europe, keeping in mind that there are other countries that glaringly breach that limit – and even Germany has done it during a certain period of time.

Q: Excuse me, but what does this greater flexibility mean then?

A: It means that, when deficit is calculated, part of the spending is not taken into account, or, better, it is considered as flexible. The [EU’s] Stability Pact effectively becomes looser. It can be done for co-financing, that is the money Italy is obliged to spend to use EU funds. We’re talking about a figure around €7 billion a year. But there’s also the investment clause, that would allow [us] to leave out of the calculation spending with a high social impact […] We’re talking about a figure around €3 billion. In total, flexibility could be worth €10 billion a year, although it can’t be taken for granted that these two items can be added together.

Of course, everyone is talking about 'interpretation', and no-one will say the rules have been formally re-written. Still, this looks as if the Italian government is claiming they have managed to loosen EU fiscal rules, via a new interpretation. Spin or otherwise, Berlin and Frankfurt won't be entirely pleased.